User talk:Looper5920/Archive 6

My Apologies

Sorry for the vandalism, I was just wondering how long it would take to be reverted. The kid seems like a real hero. Pity his mom has dragged his good name through the mud. God Bless.Cragialist 08:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bataviamuckdogs.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bataviamuckdogs.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

December portal

I reviewed your comments on the Coordination page. I added some ideas for Picture and Biography. There a number to select from for the picture, following the theme you suggested. For the biography, looked through Category:United States Marines for candidate. I did a major expansion of the first random one that met the criteria; and put it on the suggestion list. Please review as sson as is convenient. If you don't think this meets the bill, I'll offer other suggestions. — ERcheck (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

VMX-22

As a matter of fact I do know a couple guys that used to be part of that squadron. I believe the squadron is still around and will try and dig up some info on them. Probably going to be a couple days though.

I have the distinction of being a career Lance Corporal down in Beaufort, SC. I find that I enjoyed the Marine Corps much more as a concept than a lifestyle :) Cheers. NeoFreak 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Anything you can put together for VMX would be great. Let me know....would love to work together on a USMC aviation article with someone other than myself. --Looper5920 12:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The only real work I've done on the aviation articles is on MACS-2 but I work around/with MAG-31 so I was thinking on getting around to them when I got the chance. I find myself getting sucked into alot of other stuff that kills my time. I'll hit you up as soon as I put some stuff together and like I said don't ever be afraid to ask me for some help as I would rather be doing that sort of thing than what I'm doing now (cleaing out wikipedia of crap via AfD). NeoFreak 12:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I am always reluctant to ask others to do stuff here because I have always believed that people contribute to Wiki pages because it is something they cannot help, almost like an addiction. I would be more comfortable saying, you know what you are interested in and if you let me know what it is you want to expand, let me know and I will jump in and add whatever I can. If you are looking for good dministrative work to take your mind of the AfD pages I would always recommend helping assess articles. It only takes a little time to get used to it and I have made it my goal in life to get this category down to 0. Anyway, good to talk to you and I am looking forward to working with you--Looper5920 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

reactivation of 9th Reg

FYI: Don't know if this is a rumor or not but a shipmate of mine, 2ndLt Garrett M. who is just about to finish TBS told me he got his 6th choice MOS, Ground Intel because they are reactivating 9th Marines. I have searched around and cannot confirm this immediately because there is no official announcement. --ProdigySportsman 04:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• From what I know, 9th Marines will be reactivated if the Marine Corps can get the permannent increase to their endstrength so they are at 180,000. 1/9 as already been reactivates so it may not be to far off. When it does I will be sure to update it immediately. Thanks for the heads up though.--Looper5920 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

William R. Higgins

Copyedit and expansion of William R. Higgins done. Please give it a quick review and copyedit as necessary. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You are the Bio-master. I linked a few items but once again you hit a home run.--Looper5920 09:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

military brat

Hi, I'm realatively new to Wikipedia and I know that you just rated it as B on the quality scale. Is there a place where I could find specific comments/recommendations on how to improve the article or could you give me some ideas on what I need to do to improve it? I'll watch your page for a response.Balloonman 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The "B" rating was gioven because a higher rating cannot be given by an individual. Anything higher must be voted on by the community. You have already taken the correct steps to improve the article by putting it up for peer review. The article improvement system that is in place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is as good as it gets here at Wikipedia. From here you might want to look at making it a Good article candidate. After that put it through the A-class review and if you survive that it should be ready to be nominated for Feature Article status. Good luck with it and if there is ever any help I can provide please let me know. Cheers--Looper5920 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks... I'll do that.Balloonman 06:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Placed on the GA candidate list... Balloonman 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and Strategic Air Command wings

Just wanted to express my appreciation for rating my USAF bomb wing edits. THANKS  :-)) NDCompuGeek 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Looper, Thanks for jumping in! I'm in Enzed, and am sleeping while much of the wikicontributing world is awake. Please keep a eye on this situation, which is producing things like orphan articles titled Tactical and Training Wing with three lines on them, which are not linked or otherwise incorporated into what I've now reorganised as 99th Air Base Wing. NDCompuGeek and I may well ask for some support or others' involvement if this business of SAC wings gets too weird. Cheers Buckshot06 22:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

December Portal update

Looks like all of the updates are settled on for December. Will you be making the changes for tomorrow? — ERcheck (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'll get them in a few hours when I get back home. Thanks for the reminder.--Looper5920 03:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hughes Helicopters

Thanks for your work on adding references to the Hughes Helicopters article. Much appreciated. - BillCJ 16:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• No problem. I am not a fan of drive by tagging like that either.--Looper5920 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Got rid of the NZ Air Force?

Er, buddy, please don't rub it in. We actually still do have an air force, though Helen has really castrated it, and we still train FACs. :) 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to....?

Clark Kent??

Just a personal comment - are you a BOT or superman or something? Everytime I work on or create an article for the military task force and it comes up for assessment, you jump right on it!!!! I wish I knew enough to assess them myself, but then again, as an editor of the article, there may be conflict-of-interest issues there.... (of course, all the articles I work on are ready for FAC status....<G>)

Thanks for whipping around and getting these done so quickly. If you have ANY specific suggestions on how to make any of these articles better, PLEASE feel free to let me know (like, I'm begging for help here - throw me a bone! <G>) either on the talk pages of the articles themselves or on my talk page. Again, thanks! NDCompuGeek 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will drop a line where I can but my overriding goal is to get the get the list down to 0. It currently stands in the 2500 range. If I left comments on every page they would never get done plus most times i do not look to see who has created them. If you are looking for feedback on individual articles drop me a line on this page and I will have a look and let you know what can be done to improve them as best I can. Again, thanks and let me know.--Looper5920 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Man, you are quick! Sorry about the edit conflict on the 40 AD page, I tried to adjust accordingly. Will continue this discussion at the 40AD talk page.... NDCompuGeek 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

USMC

Ha ha ha - those damn Canadians! :) Kafziel ^Talk 20:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• That kind of vandalism needs to be snuffed out with a vengence. Dick and poop jokes and the occasional "Semper Fi Mother F*&^er" are one thing....but that? God help us all.--Looper5920 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New article to assess

Check out Modular Tactical Vest for assessment. — ERcheck (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• A picture and a reference, and an explanation of PALS would make it a "Start" class by the way that I assess them.--Looper5920 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Article was created in November by new editor User:Ratamacue — first edit in July, all edits military related. A potential contributor to other USMC articles. (I'll look for references and pictures.) 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessing lists

Thank you for all your work on article assessments! Just to let you know, there have been some discussions on the topic of list assessments at WP1.0, and the general consensus seems to be that they should be assessed using the regular scale (but moving towards featured lists instead of featured articles) rather than being marked as non-article pages. Kirill Lokshin 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. I will use the regular ones from now on. Cheers--Looper5920 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Navy Counterpart

You know I always figured you were out there somewhere. Very strange that you messaged me today since I happen to find some of you work on the USMC Squardon Page and I began working to format the Navy Squadron page to the same standard. Not to mention that I seem to have your third todo item as my first. also I hope you dont mind me using your squadron boxes on the Navy page. I would love some input once I get it started. --Wilsbadkarma 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Airports

Greetings! While reviewing the assessment change log for WikiProject Airports, I noticed that you created the article Marine Corps Air Station Ewa. You contribution to improving Wikipedia's collection of airport articles is greatly appreciated. If at all interested, I'd like to extend an invitation to join the project. You can join by simply adding your name to the list of participants. If not interested, please disregard this message. Thanks! thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ARBCOM ON FALLUJAH CASUALTIES

Looper5920 I hope you are going to reply to this message. I think it would be best to focus on using individual names, than relying on news reports. But there is a problem, Freepsbane is ignoring the evidence and blindly holding to the "Guardian" number of 83, now he wants to put the discusion about the Fallujah casualties to Arbcom. I wanted to know what your position is on this. I have checked the information on various sites over and over and have come to the same conclusion every time. There were 53 deaths in Anbar during the whole month of april in contrast to what he is saying that 83 were killed in just Fallujah. I have crossreferenced time and again the units those guys belonged to and have concluded that 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, 1st Marine Division and 3rd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment were at Ramadi, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment was at Hit, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment was at Husaybah and the Naval construction battalion was at Ramadi. All the others were at Fallujah at the time. And 27 of the 53 killed belonged to the units I named here. As for the quotation by Marshalbannana from Thomas E. Ricks' book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq: "Mattis was furious. 39 Marines and U.S. Soldiers had died - for what? " He said that was from the end of the 1st week of fighting I think that was not understood well. I think that he refered to 39 killed in the whole of the country in the first four days of fighting from April 4th to April 9th. I checked and indeed around that number were killed in the whole of the country by the end of the first week of the siege of the city. It was not original reserch as Freepsbane says I stood by verifyed POSTS on the internet as is http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ So I hope you respond to my message and tell me your position on this. --Top Gun 01:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2/9

Oh Yeah! Thanks for the good news. 2/9 is like the mythtical Greek bird "The Phoenix". Take care buddy, Tony the Marine 02:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Images of Boston....

Hello,

I was wondering what the address of the mural in Southie you uploaded was..I am relocating to Boston in the future and want to visit all the sites. Thanks.

Loop, check these 2ndMAW pages/website, I want your take on the discrepency

First look here. Here is the link to the Marine Aircraft Group 29 page. Thanks and keep up the hard charging Devil Dog. --ProdigySportsman 01:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I just checked the latest edition of the Marine Corps Times. MAG-29 is going to Iraq in January to be the resident MAG so it seems they are transferring their stateside units to MAG-26 until they return. I would keep the pages as is because those units will revert back upon their return. Might be good to maybe make a note on the deployment and the reshuffle on the page. Thanks for the note and good catch.... can never be too careful Yut--Looper5920 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Oliver Prince Smith

I noticed this article has no references. Did you use the biography and external link to write the article? By the way, I move the article to a more detail name and moved the dab to Oliver Smith so faulty non-specific links point to the disambiguation page and can be fixed. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad

Tony the Marine

O.K., so maybe you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones a "Happy Holidays" and all of the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merry Christmas in 100 languages

Navy Squadron List

Hey man I wanted you to take a look at the progress I have made with the List of United States Navy aircraft squadrons. I'm still in the process of adding alot and I still have a ton to do. I just wanted to get your opinion on the general direction. --Wilsbadkarma 19:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, no, no. I didn't really decide to do that in fact I would rather not go thought the trouble and search for information that doesn't even exist. I honestly just didn't want to remove anything. It seemed like it was taking away from it. but your right most of the information is impossible to find. So you don't think its going to be a bad thing to remove squadrons that are redundant because of renaming due to receipt of new equipment or those some 100 squadrons that existed for 6 months during WWII that never even had the time to come up with a name let alone design a patch and submit it? Cause believe me all I'm looking for is one second opinion swaying in that direction and its done. To be honest I haven't touched it in a few days I'm in the process of trying to get my portal featured. The desire to work on it kinda comes in waves.. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the thing that truly shits me. I have a list that will never be complete. There are squadrons that existed for a month or two only to be deactivated with no nickname or logo after 2 months. That being said...once I have all of the articles created the list will be complete. If the logos and nicknames are not there then they are not there. Nothing I can change 40 to 60 years later. I understand you when you say it comes waves. I am the same way. Good luck with it and if i can help in any way just say the word.--Looper5920 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of talkpage warnings

Hello! You've removed a recently added user warning template from your user or user talk page. This tends to give the impression that you didn't read it. User warning templates contain valuable information and although you may disagree, it's best if you consider them. Thank you. )Marshalbannana 18:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

I read your tag and it was wrongly placed. Did I use profanity....Yes. Did it warrant a "1 more time and you are blockesd tag?" Absolutely not, especially considering the fact that you have consistently reverted edits in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I will continue to revert your attempts to place that tag on my page. By the way...for someone with so few edits you seem to have an intimate knowledge of wikipedia procedures.,,just an observation.--Looper5920 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag was warented you have in the past launched verbal vollies against others, as for my knowlege you can atribute it to reverse engineering I copy a few tags that have been used against me or i just read on other's pages then edit a few things like the name of it's target. it works as a tried and true strategy alowing some one to develope as a veteran without having to learn in a time consuming maner.Marshalbannana 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Learn to use previous tags better. Don't argue that tags should remain because you were new when you placed them. Also, your actions still do not account for the fact that you seem to know Wikipedia policy very intimately despite your limited time with the site. This leads me to preclude that you are a member arguing under another name and that you are pushing an agenda and purposely trying to provoke me into doing things that would cause me to get blocked. I have contributed to much and have to much invested to get derailed by you.--Looper5920 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, most Wikipedia administrators have agreed (from what I've read on the administrator noticeboards) that it's ok for users to remove warning labels from their talk pages. Cla68 02:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back! I hope you had a great RL vacation and a wonderful Christmas.

I've been maintaining at a slow pace. I'll be sending you an e-mail shortly with an update. — ERcheck (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Pretty awesome vacation. I finally went to Vietnam and got to many places I never thought I would see. Made it to Hue, Camp Carroll, Khe Sahn among others. Probably many of the places "Tony" humped back in more dangerous times. An awesome trip and if you ever get the chance I really recommend it. Just don't take the train. All the best.--Looper5920 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

First Battle of Fallujah

Please direct all discussion of casualty figures to the article's talk page. I've protected that page for now to stop the revert war. I've made a comment on the talk page concerning the protection and sources. — ERcheck (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

List of ratings

List of United States Navy ratings

Hey man take a look and tell me what you think I have to upload about 90% of the images yet but im to tired to do it so that will be the last thing I do to it once I wake up--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 09:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the barnstar--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 09:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Strike Fighter / Fighter Attack

Potato, Patato. Sorry, to used to Navy terms I was reading it and didn't even catch it. thanks for the help --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 01:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• No dramas. Always good to have a fresh set of eyes go over that which you have been working on for awhile.--Looper5920 01:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal update

Next portal update — I've updated News and DYK recently, and if you are good with the quote suggestion, I'll update that. That will leave article, bio, and picture for you to update. Feedback? — ERcheck (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making the update. I uploaded a higher resolution image of Jason Dunham; added the USMC Portal tag to the new articles. Hope you have a great New Year! — ERcheck (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Have a great New Year also.--Looper5920 02:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Air Station infobox

Hey I talked to Kirill about adding information to the Military Structure infobox to include more information for air stations, AFB, airfields, etc. since the are lacking alot of Airport information (e.g. Los Angeles International Airport) I made a variation a while back from the airport template that would incorporate more information (e.g. Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake) but I think everything should have the same infobox. Anyway Kirill said I could to send him a list of what needs to be added and since I know you do as much work on MCAS's as I do on NAS's so I figured if you had any input we could incorporate that. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Have A Happy New Year Looper5920!!!! | From Wilsbadkarma

I hope that you have a wonderful New Year. Dont forget to party like, well like its New years eve!!!!

Thanks for the note. Same to you. I wish I had put some sexy template but my sincere words will have to suffice.--Looper5920 02:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• you busted me, hahahah!

CH-46A Images

The image you deleted on the CH-46 Sea Knight, and which I restored, is the only image I know of which shows the CH-46A SAR helos that belonged to SOES at MCAS Cherry Point (not VMR-1 at the time). Opinions on quality are not a reason to delete images with historical significance to the subject at hand. Besides, that's a 26 yr old print. Flybd5 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The "historical significance" you speak off is questionable at best and bottomline is that it is a scan of a bad 26 year old photo that does not add anything to the article. Maybe VMR-1 or maybe even MCAS Cherry Point but it does not belong in the CH-46 article.--Looper5920 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll make any additional comments in the talk page for the article. Flybd5 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Article needing attention

I'll take care of it. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Just thought I was helping out. Looked to me like they were in the wrong spot. Normally one would think an aviation article belongs in the aviation template. Not the military history template. A maritime article would go in the maritime template, not the history template. Do what you see fit with them, but I think they are in the correct place now. --JAYMEDINC 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Portal stuff

Did you get my recent e-mail (today) on Portal updates? — ERcheck (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Check--Looper5920 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cactus Table

Here is the first idea that came to mind its also probably the worst but never the less. User:Wilsbadkarma/workpage3--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 05:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Check it User:Wilsbadkarma/workpage3 --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

CAF layout

I'm not sure that I'm the "go to" guy for the Pacific War, but I appreciate the vote of confidence. Anyway, I haven't really worked on an article so far that's about an organization, so, I'm not completely sure what's the best layout. I looked at the military featured articles that are about organizations, and there doesn't seem to be one particular format to use. Because the CAF was a hybrid organization, I think it's difficult to use a straightforward outline like what is used in the USMC article. Thus, to make a long story short, I think the outline you currently have in the article is good except that maybe the "living conditions," "commanders," and "Japanese" sections should go at the end of the article. Then, whenever one of the ending sections, such as the "living conditions" section, is referred to in the "fighting" sections, there can be a or wikilink to that section at the end of the article. There's so much information available on this subject that it actually makes it difficult to decide what to put in the article and how. I think you've done really good work with the article so far. Cla68 10:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Your responses really got to the heart of what I was looking for. Should the battles come before the extra info or should it be the other way around. I still don't know but when the article gets a bit more meat I'll be sure to be asking again.--Looper5920 10:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just added some more images to the CAF gallery in the Commons. If there are any more CAF-related photos on the web, I haven't found them. Cla68 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just added a few more to the article. Hopefully where they are placed makes sense. Thanks for the help.--Looper5920 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have, from two books on the coastwatchers, some pictures of the actual coastwatchers on Bougainville and New Georgia (Kennedy, Read, etc) who provided most of the warnings to the CAF of inbound Japanese aircraft. The images are public domain under Australian (and therefore U.S.) copyright law so, as soon as I scan them, I'll add them to the image gallery. Cla68 02:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cactus Air Force

Hello, and thanks for expanding this article. A new editor deleted part of your recent additions as out of place; it't not clear whether its presence or placement in the article is at issue. I have suggested to the editor at User talk:124.183.168.73 that he discuss it on the talk page for the article. You may want to open a discussion there and invite the new editor to participate. Thanks. Kablammo 14:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Squadrons

I kinda figured you would I wasn't going to put it up there anytime soon since I wanted to do the same thing with Navy and I'll look for the MC ones too since you seem to have your hands full with the actual content of the article. I just put those in there for demonstration purposes on top of that some of those dates are going to be a pain. I don't care what we do on the AF one though, HA. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a book with all of the dates so they aren't a problem. Thanks again for the help. I am actually going to get cracking on the insignias right now.--Looper5920 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey man I have scoured for those last three and they just aren't there. I'll keep looking but its not look good for finding them on the net.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was begining to think something was wrong I rarely search Marine Corps stuff so I wasn't sure if there were times when you just dont get anything on a search. anyway I'll keep looking.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 02:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Got some answers. First...I messed up. The squadrons were not VMUs rathers they were VMJs. J meant utility back in the day. They eventually became VMRs in 1944. Neither squadron had a patch but they both used the MAG-25 patch. I can scan the MAG-25 and VMSB-233 patches here soon. I'll post them when I get a chance. Thanks for the catch. --Looper5920 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions...

I appreciate your contributions to military history here on Wikipedia and to the Famous Marines List...but having served in the Marine Corps, there are several legendary Marines who occupy a special place in Marine Corps history. Not only are these particular Devils Dogs revered, but they are taught to all new recruits during Boot Camp. Any list of famous Marines would be remiss if it didn't include the following names:

Smedley Butler, Alfred Cunningham, Dan Daly, Lou Diamond, Archibald Henderson, John Lejeune, Chesty Puller, John Mackie, Opha Mae Johnson, Samuel Nicholas, Presley O'Bannon.

My contributions to the list are not trying to chronicle every Marine Medal of Honor winner or general, but rather only those Marines who are held as highly honored Leathernecks. Captpaul 06:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I never doubted that....however I would ask you to please be vigilant when others try to add info.--Looper5920 03:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Paul. It is not a matter of not wanting to recognize these Marines. I know who they are and the place they have in Marine Corps history. It is a matter of once they are on the list then there is no way to argue why every other Marine with a page on wikipedia should not be there. If you give an inch they will take a mile. The page used to be just that and it was out of control. If those names are on it then it will become a mess again. If you want to create another list say for them then by all means do so but I am not a big fan of putting them on the list for now.--Looper5920 08:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • I’m not merely offering notes. Although I sincerely agree that the list should not include every Marine with a Wikipedia page, I am vehement about my position, and I would like to state that these select names are not part of my personal favorites list nor did I just randomly select them for inclusion.

As I stated before, every one of the names that I am advocating are names that every recruit and officer candidate must learn about during their respective Boot Camp/OCS training. These heroes of the Corps are so venerated that some are sung about in running cadences. I think the case can easily be made that because of the special place they hold in Marine Corps history that they should be and would be rightfully included on the list of famous Marines.

If you notice, I support your contention that this isn’t a general officer, commandant, or medal of honor list. I am not advocating that Jacob Zeilin, Holland Smith, Victor Krulak, Paul X. Kelly, or Al Gray, all notable in their own right, should be on this list, as they don’t hold the same position as the names that I am advocating.

However, Chesty Puller, the prototypical Marine, is one of the MOST famous Marines of all and the decision not to include him on this list would be equivalent of not including Muhammad Ali on a list of famous boxing champions.

I would like to note for the record that I was the one who modified the page description to read as follows: “The following is a list of people who served in the Marines and have gained public notoriety through subsequent endeavors, infamy, or successes”. And I was the one who later modified it to read “OR Marines who are part of Marine Corps history”, so that these names would be appropriate on this page.

Further, the actual title of the page is simply “LIST OF FAMOUS U.S. MARINES”, meaning any one who is famous and was a Marine, regardless of the chronology, not just people who have become famous since leaving the Corps.

To illustrate the irrelevancy of when or why these various people gained notoriety, I find it interesting that Donald Conroy is on the list. Donald is only famous because his son modeled the antagonist in the “Great Santini” after him.

Secondly, the list as it stands now includes “Barbara Dulinsky — first female Marine deployed to a combat zone”, but doesn’t include Opha Mae Johnson, the first officially recognized female Marine!

Lastly, the only MOH winners I am advocating are John Mackie, the first Marine to win an MOH, and Dan Daly and Smedley Butler, both of whom won TWO MOHs! Again, just to illuminate the inconsistency of the current inclusion policy, the list as it stands now includes Louis Cukela who is on the list because he won an Army and a Marine/Navy MOH.

You propose starting a separate list…what would you suggest calling it, List of Famous U.S. Marines Part II?

These people aren’t simply famous, they are LEGENDS, and if you don’t see the importance of including these Marines on this list, perhaps we should offer a request for comment or conduct a survey on the appropriateness of their inclusion.

--Captpaul 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you desire...I no longer care.--Looper5920 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • That was too easy, for as adamant, vigilant, and prolific as you have been, I thought you would put up more of a fight. I hope you haven’t lost your zeal for being a Wikiguru. :) --Captpaul 03:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • I don't care enough to waste time fighting over it. I would ask that you keep an eye on the list as it will morph into something you did not plan for in a few months. Cheers.--Looper5920 03:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Outpost Harry

Hi. I didn't want to start an edit war with reverts back and forth, so figured I'd stop by and try to explain my position to you, in case I'm wrong, as you seem to have a broader understanding than I do.

On the Outpost Harry page I noticed you changed the redlined link for 5th Regimental Combat Team to Regimental Combat Team 5, which is a Marine unit. As I understand it though, the 5th Regimental Combat Team in the Outpost Harry context was actually an Army unit [1]. Thanks for any clarificaion. wbfergus 18:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I guess i was just in a mass editing phase that day. Made an assumption that was wrong. Thanks for the catch. --Looper5920 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I figured this way was easier than just doing a revert, in case I was wrong, and you reverting back again as well. I wasn't sure if you had any information that I might have missed. I guess when I create the 5th Regimental Combat Team I'll need to specify it as 5th Regimental Combat Team (United States Army) to distinguish it from the Marine's unit? wbfergus 11:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea.--Looper5920 11:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1st Marines

We need to fix 1st Marine Regiment. It incorrectly states " The regiment...is composed of appoximately 1000 Marines and Sailors..." Obviously someone got this mixed up with a battalion. Don't know the exact number of 1st Marines but would guess 3000-3500. Having 4 batts and 1 H&S Company. Keep hard charging Devil Dog. --ProdigySportsman 03:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I fixed it for now. Yut--Looper5920 04:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Hi - left a note on e-mail for you for. — ERcheck (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. 9th Marine Regiment question

I looked for the 9th in the units list on the Marines own website but couldn't find it, I thought the list was outdated or something, but it seems I was wrong. The thing I don't understand is how can there be a battalion if the regemint is un-activated, how is that done organizationally? --DelftUser 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The regiment will probably be reactivated but for right now they are just reactivating the individual battalions. The best example of how it can be done is to look at the 4th Marines. The battalions all belong to other regiments in the 1st Marine Division at the moment. Cheers--Looper5920 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DY notice DYK

Did you notice that there have been 3 USMC bios on DYK in the past week? (Frederick C. Branch, Megan McClung, Alan Shapley) — ERcheck (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have caught notice...congratulations. I made a few edits where I could. Since you are on such a roll then i will offer up Keith J. Stalder to see if you can take it to the next level. Again..congrats.--Looper5920 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Done — take a look. Added info probably not enough to change assessment though. — ERcheck (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First Battle of Fallujah

In plain English, "the battle began" is superior to "battle was engaged by the USA". But who started it? And why? With those questions in mind, "began" is wishy-washy.--Shtove 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal news updates

I made a few updates to the "In the News" box of the USMC Portal. Feel free to edit them for clarity. — ERcheck (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranks, rates, and ratings

Hey man got a question. I'm trying to get List of United States Navy ratings featured and a comment has been made regarding the capitalization of the entire rating name. They believe it is against WP:MOS to do so. I have talked to Kirill and he seems to agree with me that it is a formal title and should be capitalized all the way through, although the argument "Well Kirill said so!" may work in some circles I don't think it will help with the list reviewers. So, I came up with an argument for the ratings to be capitalized all the way through but, not being an English major I though I would run it by someone else before I replied. Just tell me what you think. If you dont care.

“ Each rating is a proper title and the names of the ratings are the subject of each section. So, being used in that context would make the ratings nouns. Therefore the entire rating should be capitalized ”

Thanks--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to put it in terms other that military or the U.S. as well. Something like:

“ Each rating is a proper title and the names of the ratings are the subject of each section. Much the same as Queen's Counsel for lawyers in the U.K. The name is a formal title and thus deserves to be capitalized throughout. ”

One of the hard parts is that very few aspects of society are as formal on titles as the military. We would say Lieutenant General vice Associate professor as a title in the civilian world. Not a bad thing that Wikipedia reflects the formality of the military world. This might get some anal wikipedians all fired up and they will rant and rave about the MoS but it really is no big deal and exceptions are made all of the time. It will come down to the common sense of the person offering the argument. We'll see.--Looper5920 03:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

hey if you don't mind offer your argument on the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Navy ratings/archive1 page that way there are two views from the "Military minded" that may help sway the discussion.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On Brig article.

As per your suggestions on the Brig article I have expanded the introduction and added an infobox. Please review the changes. Thanks for your imput.--Wowaconia 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job...just upgraded it to B-class and did a little bit of editing on the introduction--Looper5920 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

New article for assessment

One new one for assessment - Gerald C. Thomas. — ERcheck (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

USMC Portal/article goals for 2007

I've been thinking about goals for the New Year. With respect to the USMC Portal and USMC articles, these are my thoughts:

• Portal organization to the point of it becoming a Featured Portal. I think this is quite doable, just will take a bit of organizational time.
• Bring a few key articles to Featured article status. From my point of view, I think that it would be helpful to recruit some folks who have done a number of these to help. For starters, I think we could focus on a few key battles (Battle of Iwo Jima, Battle of Chosin Reservoir, and Battle of Belleau Wood) and a few key biographies — Chesty Puller, Smedley Butler, John A. Lejeune, ...

What do you think? — ERcheck (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I read the note and put the reply off for a bit then forgot. I agree with you on both counts. I have begun to work on the Chosin Reservoir article a bit but it is still along way off. I have also left a note with Wilsbadkarma to give a little help with some Portal reformatting. He took the Navy Portal to FA status and hopefully can help us as well. For the Bio...all three are good and have a lot of info about them. Let me know which one you want to start with and I'll go that way. Cheers--Looper5920 09:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Difficult decision on the bios, but, I think Chesty Puller should be first. On the portal, in order to get it organized in a manner similar to the Navy portal, we need prepare a list/page (~10-12) ready for each box. So, a bit of planning. — ERcheck (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are going now. I had not actually followed the Navy Portal's FA candidacy that close so I wasn't aware of all of the things that were needed. I'm tracking now. Well, agreed, it's time to get cracking on the bios and articles. I'll get cracking.--Looper5920 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

Please remove this article from GA status for the time being until the two sections with the expand tags can be updated. Really can't give it a serious look when the article has two big holes in it. It is well on its way but it is still too soon.--Looper5920 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas where I could find 3/3's deployments and history between 1969-1990 and 1991-2004? Palm_Dogg 06:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal and Review

Hey thanks for the heads up ill do some major work on the article and as for the colors and layout ill work on it and post a couple of version on my workpages in a little while for you to look at and send you a link. Plus im a featured portal reviewer so I can probably help you get it to that status. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey I thought since you guys want to go for featured I would offer some suggestions that you might want to make before going for FP hope you don't mind constructive criticism.

• Rotating content for Article, Picture, bio, and quote
• Nomination pages for Article, picture and bio, yeah I know this is lame and no one will ever suggest something but when the day comes you would much rather them make a suggestion than just change or add something.
• you need a more comprehensive topics section with more than just lists.
• the title of the selected article should be a bold link to the article
• You need image credits for all selected images if the actual person that took the picture isn't available then you should at least list the person that uploaded it.
• Web resources don't need to be on the main page since the have a tendency to steer people away from Wikipedia. If the section is something that you want to keep I would recommend making a tab for them.
• as for the things you can do section if you decided to make a separate tab for web resources I would recommend putting them on that tab so as not to have red links on your main page. I you decide not to make the other tab then leaving it isn't that big of a deal.
• In your Associated Wikimedia most of the links go to pages that don't exist on the sister projects I would recommend going to those sites and creating categories for the Marine Corps and adding articles to the categories.
• just for the sake of the WPMILHIST I would recommend making a link if not a section devoted to related WikiProjects.

Again hope you dont mind Ill make the a couple color recomendations and shoot them to you shortly.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I played around with some colors I did my bestnot to make them look like the Navy portal even though we share the same blue and gold the only real difference is the Marines Corps crimson but that doesn't really help much. I put the one I like the best here User:Wilsbadkarma/workpage and I made a list of Just boxes and backgrounds here User:Wilsbadkarma/workpage4 for you to look at. Let me know if you like any of them and ill emliment the changes. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the help. I think I am partial to #6 on you workpage#4 but with White letering vice the gold. What do you think?--Looper5920 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilsbadkarma, Thanks for the ideas. I think the red should be the red of the blood stripe on the USMC dress blues. Looking at it right now, I think that #FF0000 is the closest color. The yellow should contrast, as in the USMC colors... a good color seems to be #FFFF00. The "blue" should be a navy, as in the blues uniform - similar to your example 6, which is #25185d. Could you do the full example with navy outside (background), yellow title bars (title background) and red text (as in the current USMC portal)? — ERcheck (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Above was an edit conflict with your preceding note. Seems like we are on the same page. I like the idea of the red and yellow as it is now. It mirror colors in the Marine Corp Colors. — ERcheck (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See User:ERcheck/Sandbox1 for the box version. — ERcheck (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. Looks good.--Looper5920 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to wait to see the mockup on Wilsbadkarma's page? Or, do you want me to make the change? — ERcheck (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just looked at the actual colors that you have been using on the USMC portal. EXACTLY the colors I chose above. (I looked at http://www.visibone.com/colorlab/ to experiment with colors.) — ERcheck (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change--Looper5920 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Buy the way the red is the excact red in the Marine corp logo which is why I used it as for the Navy blue I would recommend using 25185d which translates to PMS 275 and according to the US Navy factfile here it is the offical navy color. Oh and the gold I was using is PMS 125 which is The US Navy and Marine Corps Gold. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know where there is a similar fact page for the Marine Corps? — ERcheck (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed my mind. I think the red background on title bar looks good too. I made that change. What do you think? See Portal:United States Marine Corps. — ERcheck (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have look ever where for any site that has the "official" colors and one doesn't exists. As for the changes it looks really good except, and this is just me being incredibly anal, the color of the header-box isn't the exact red from the USMC logo just right below it. But it's not that big of a deal just me being me. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right — it's not the same color as the logo. To me it's a balance between the logo color and the effect of the red, yellow, and navy on the page. It's just a bit off, and tolerable. Do you have a color number for the the USMC Colors (Image:Marine corps flag.gif)? The red is as close as I could choose to the blood stripe on the dress blues. — ERcheck (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Better question — what is the red on the USMC page — http://www.usmc.mil ? — ERcheck (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the source file the USMC website has #cc0000 as the red. --WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 02:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote is that no matter whcih one you choose...the red in the emblem should match the red in the border as slose as possible. Looks much better though. I'll make some more headway on the other suggestions when I get home later. Cheers

See my example again — example colors. The top one is what is currently on the USMC Portal. — ERcheck (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You know when you look at the colors side by side I can see your point, there is less orange and it does seem to look better so I'm changing my stance, I dont know if I get a vote but if I do, ff0000.--WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 04:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Final (maybe) — after review with Wilsbadkarma, #ff0000 color seems to be best. I've made the change to the portal. — ERcheck (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Expanded article

I expanded the new Ernest Ivy Thomas, Jr. article. Please review and reassess as appropriate. — ERcheck (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

New article to assess

If you have a chance, please review Richard E. Cavazos. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• More added to article — image and citations x 2. — ERcheck (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey man I have one too so I figured I could just add it here Barbara Allen Rainey now there isn't a lot but I have worked with it about as much as I can. To be the first female Naval Aviator theres bubkus on this woman. I know it's going to stay start class I'm just looking for a read through.— WilsBadKarma ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 23:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting mistaken recreations

This is an easy one. Deletion qualifies under speedy criteria G7 (author and sole contributor requests deletions). You can tag such articles with {{db-g7}}. I've deleted it as a G7. — ERcheck (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal update for Feb

I'd put a few suggestions on the Portal page already. Below the month, "in the queue" for quotes, I've got a few choices lined up. I'll give it some more thought on other features and add within the next 24 hours. I've not added this yet, but what do you think about the bio being either the outgoing Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps (John Estrada) or the incoming (Carlton Kent)? — ERcheck (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the SgtMaj idea for the bio. I'll take a look to see which one is more comprehensive. Would be nice if we had enough material to get them both up to "B-class" status. We'll see how that goes. Thanks for the help on the delete.--Looper5920 12:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've worked them both to as much detail as I could find. Your choice. — ERcheck (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

USMC and use of FMF

MARFORCOM is still dual hatted as FMFLANT reporting to USFFC as stated below from his official mission statement:

COMMARFORCOM also serves in the following capacities: Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic; Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Europe; Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Europe; U.S. Marine Corps Forces, South; and U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Strategic; as well as Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Bases, Atlantic.

Thanks for note....however MARFORCOM is still "officially" saying they are MARFORCOM and FMFLANT at least on their website[2]. The confusion in the past stemed from who they were supporting or reporting to as when they worked directly with the CINC (now COCOM), they were either MARFORPAC/LANT and coequal with the Navy component, but if they were responding to the respective Navy components (PAC or LANTFLT (now USFFC)), they were FMFPAC/LANT so names coexisted, but typically they'd rather now be under the Navy four star and go directly to the "Joint" four star at PACOM or JFCOM, whatever the case may be. That said, MARFORCOM site has a brandnew look, but it mentions "CinC" in mission statement so that means if may not be up to date. I also checked the MARFORPAC site and found no mention of FMF at all so I think I'll call MARFORCOM in AM or go by as i was planning to be on the base. It's worth finding out and my interests go beyond just getting the Wiki-info right. That's what I like about the collaborative natur eof the Wiki-experience...more than one person contributing to keep up to date. Cheers, HJ 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're an article-classifying machine!

Just wanted to offer kudos - I've been running around like mad adding the WPMILHIST banner to articles, and I noticed that you can classify them as fast as I can add them. You must be a Marine! - RJASE1 04:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• To much free time I guess. Thanks--Looper5920 04:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I agree. Non-notable groups/units/etc. can be tagged {{db-a7}} for speedy deletion for non-notability (if no assertion of notability has been made). I tagged the articles and also added my comment to the contributor's page. — ERcheck (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I also have to learn how to be nicer on new people's talk pages.--Looper5920 04:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Battery page

sorry about that, i saw the battery i, battery l, ect.. bullets and thought someone was waiting to add to them (i'm new here). Should i just have written a general article under the three battery bullets, such as: "a Marine battery is structured as..." yatta yatta?

Did i post this question in the right place? (sorry again i forgot to sign) Boymonkeyevil 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boymonkeyevil (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

• Actually, I should be the one apologizing for my terse remarks. I need to be a bit more welcoming to new authors. If you want to write a paragraph on what constitues a firing battery I think that would be helpful. I don't think each individual one needs a paragraph. Matbe even something like Structure of a United States Marine Corps artillery battery might be something to think about. Hope this helps and I hope you stick around and help us with USMC related articles--Looper5920 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Flypast

Hello, Looper. I am the creator of flypast although merely a musician and City of London Guide by trade, so what do I know of Military History? :o) Thanks for taking an interest in the article. I had hoped, from its inception, that it was a good article. Perhaps some graphics or a snazzy table would enliven it? I did research as much as humanly possible. I wonder, having looked at the assessment scale on the MilHistProj - and remember I speak from I standpoint of utter ignorance thereof - would you consider advancing it to a B scale? Please reply to Talk:Flypast . Best wishes. --FClef (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just took another look at the article. While it is a great start and well referenced I have some concerns about the content/layout of the article so I would not feel it appropriate to give it a "B" rating at this time. First, there is far to much emphasis on the U.K. I would argue that flypasts occur in almost every country that has an air force. While all of the examples are well referenced, most are given undue weight by either being to long or having their own section. Might be more appropriate to lose all of the subsection of the U.K., create one section, shorten it to include only the ones that really belong to a sentence or two. Or you may consider renaming the article Flypasts (United Kingdom). Every flypast that ever occured does not have to be mentioned. I am also not a big fan ofthe image gallery in the middle of the page. Might be better to move that to the bottom or incorporate the photos into the article individually. Anyway, just some initial thoughts. I am actually in the middle of something so I will be able to add a bit more later. --Looper5920 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Looper - emphasis on the UK is not, in and of itself, a mortal sin. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia, notably, e.g., parade and missing man formation, where there is huge emphasis on the US. Other articles also emphasise other countries.

I spent two months gathering references both nationally and internationally. I would not like to see the UK subsection being lost - it is the lead section of the article. I am a British writer and led with that because the weight of available material was there; I am not aware of Wikipedia being a US-led concern and fail to see the need to drop the UK subsection.

You will note that it was followed with a large international section detailing flypasts all over the world. There have been very many spectacular flypasts involving great numbers of aircraft with millions of spectators worldwide. I went to a great deal of trouble to include other countries.

With regard to detail, it is the quality and scope of detail that give this article its character. The article has won plaudits and I fail to see why you would wish to cut material that enriches it. Take a look at some of the best articles and you will see they are rich in detail. I am highly academically qualified and put my best thoughts and writing into this and stand by my work - I don't understand why you would wish dilute or red-pen it to the degree you appear to suggest.

I put together this article to the best of my ability and resources over a two-month period, using scores of references dating back as far as 1913 up to the present day. Your suggestions would materially destroy both the content and tone of my article.

Nor can I accept your suggestion of renaming the article Flypasts (United Kingdom). After all, articles which deal majorly with the US don't have parenthetical titles to that effect - so why should this? Nor is that an accurate title: I included the rest of the world and I feel that your suggestion does not reflect the content of the article. It is UK-led, but as I said in the beginning, that is not a mortal sin and that should not disqualify it from a Class B rating. --FClef (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

FCLEF, Thanks for responding. I'll list my responses according to the questions/issues you left on my talk page. I have no issues with a U.K. bias where it is appropriate however this article is not a good example. You will notice that in my original response to your queries about this article I never mentioned a lack of U.S. inclusion. That was not my intention when I wrote that nor is it now. What I said is that you have an article on Flypasts that is almost entirely devoted to events that have occured in the U.K. and in the grand scheme of things it is unduly weighted to the U.K. Almost every nation in the world with an Air Force conducts flypasts so I think it would not be correct to highlight an article that emphasizes one Air Force over all of the others. I am not doubting your references or your want to see this article become the best it can be. Please look at the content and weight and re-evaluate where appropriate.--Looper5920 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Looper - I am actually on my edit page correcting some of the typos in my hastily-concocted message (there's passion for you ! :o) ) and your reply just flashed in. Boy! Speed of light, what? Thanks for a thoughtful reply. RJASE1 has also taken an interest in this and I will ask him to have a go too.

Incidentally, one of the things that occurred to me was to merge missing man formation into this article. It is very poorly written in the second half but I think it belongs in flypast, being a type thereof - and it would broaden the perspective. What do you think?

Remember that the scope of this was non-commercial flypasts and I was dealing with events that have been referenced in mostly the news media. I probably have reached the limits of my knowledge on this because this really reflected all of the references I gathered. (I am only a freelance English tutor, theatre pianist and City of London Guide in training, so what do I know? :-p

I will revaluate and consider the weight if you think that this would push the article further up the scale. I think your photographs idea is good. Ideally, I'd love to put in a table or timeline but don't have the tech know-how. Can you help with this? I will probably work in my sandbox for the moment. If I do that, can I send drafts to you for consideration? Is that a fit or wise thing to do on Wikipedia? -- FClef (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the missing man formation should remain its own separate article. While it is similiar to the flypast, for the most part it is separate and conjures a very different meaning then the usual flypast --Looper5920 18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

flight deck personnel on Amphibs

Hate to bother you with a Professional Knowledge question but I was curious if you knew. On big deck amphibs, LHDs and LHAs, are all the deck crew Marines? So, no Sailors serve as QA, Safety Officers (white shirts), or LSOs, correct? --ProdigySportsman 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)